Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 112
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Obviously some of what the conspiracy theorists advocate about the faked moon landings is shaky and in some case bonkers. I don't want to debate whether they're right and NASA is wrong. If this was a cover up that is exactly what the organisation covering up would want (misdirection - talk about the more extreme cranks rather than the idea / evidence).

    But something still stinks here doesn't it?
    “It is better to debate a question without settling it
    than to settle a question without debating it.”
    - Joseph Joubert

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brockport, NY
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbenighted View Post
    Obviously some of what the conspiracy theorists advocate about the faked moon landings is shaky and in some case bonkers. I don't want to debate whether they're right and NASA is wrong. If this was a cover up that is exactly what the organisation covering up would want (misdirection - talk about the more extreme cranks rather than the idea / evidence).

    But something still stinks here doesn't it?
    No.

    (edited at mod suggestion)

    Nothing stinks. There is no cover up. Man landed on the moon on the Apollo 11 mission and several subsequent missions. Everything the conspiracy theorists suggest, short of their names, is bonkers.

    If this was a cover up, don't you think an organization that succeeded in covering up something as significant as this could make a few conspiracy theorists who know "the truth" disappear without a trace? The fact that the conspiracy nuts are out there telling their story is by itself proof that their story is untrue.

    Furthermore, the Russians had sophisticated measures to track our space flights. Why would they go along with such a hoax?

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    It's the Russians that are the problem. Russians put an unmanned probe in orbit: Americans do the same. Russians put a man in orbit: Americans do the same. At no point in the space race did one superpower simply go, 'No the Russians have done it. No point in trying that.' Russians ahead all the way. Up to the point where Kennedy says we're going to the moon. (Apparently even NASA hadn't been informed that he was going to make this gargantuan claim.) Suddenly, Americans are making faultless (casualty-less), previously untried (not even pre-flight unmanned probes) flights to the moon, incorporating millions more risk factors than any spaceflight before it, and the Russians, well, just stop. Never even seriously attempt a manned mission to the moon.

    Forget the cranks, the evidence and all that (although there is a ****-load of that to ignore) - just trust in the history. Don't trust in NASA because their credibility has been called into question. Much more reliable to look to the behaviour of other countries involved historically at the time. Sometimes it's not evidence of something that tells us something stinks: it's the absence of something.
    “It is better to debate a question without settling it
    than to settle a question without debating it.”
    - Joseph Joubert

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    I wonder why China is in such a rush to land on the moon?

    Just today I heard there is stuff only found only on the moon that can produce nuclear energy (through fusion) with no radioactive waste. It's called helium3: Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel - this reminds me of lithium crystals referenced in Star Trek.

    The article says Russia is interested too - you can bet the USA is interested.
    Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3.
    "We will provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."
    Last edited by Snoop; November 19th, 2007 at 10:33 AM.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    American Southwest
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    In just one more short year all your questions will be answered. The Chinese have lauched a probe called, Chang'e 1 has entered lunar orbit and is preparing to perform a number precision measurements of the lunar surface.

    The spacecraft carries a total of eight primary instruments to photograph and map the lunar surface, probe its depth, study the regolith's chemical composition, and analyze the space environment around the Moon.


    According to the mission description, Change'1 carries two basic imagers.


    A CCD stereo camera will produce three-dimensional images of the lunar surface by compiling three separate, two-dimensional views of each target area. Meanwhile, the probe's interferometer spectrometer imager is expected to overlay optical measurements with spectra to depict the regional distribution of resources and materials.


    Chang'e 1 will also carry a laser altimeter to take precise elevation measurements of the lunar surface, as well as gamma/X-ray spectrometers to hunt out and measure the amount of up to 14 elements – among them iron, potassium, uranium and titanium.


    A microwave detector will bounce signals down to the Moon's surface, operating on four different frequencies to determine the lunar regolith's depth, while a high-energy solar particle detector and low-energy ion instrument – Chang'e 1's space environment monitor system – measures the solar wind environment, according to the CNSA mission description.

    SPACE.com -- China Launches First Moon Probe

    It is likely this probe will beam back quality images of the landing sites in just a manner of time.

    And it may also beam back difinitive proof that George Bush is responsible for sparking an intergalactic war and has a large military base on the dark side of the moon. Those wily Canadians!
    "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning" and "The Bush Administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."
    Paul Hellyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    It won't all be solved with the Chinese. There have been unmanned probes sent to the moon since Apollo but suspiciously none of them have ever carried optical camera powerful enough to provide evidence of the landings. Easily done. Probably some of the money used in the missions in secretly American - probably through some global company - in exchange for simply not utilising instruments or coordinates that would potentially disprove the landings. How easy would that be?

    It's like Mars. Look at how many unmanned probes screw up before landing there. Now this is not evidence for a conspiracy on Mars but it does beg the question how 60's technology put scores of men on another planetoid and now we can barely get the odd probe down on the Martian surface. Throw the russian inability to get there into the mix and again it's the history (the history of successful space flight - manned or unmanned) which draws the landings into question.
    “It is better to debate a question without settling it
    than to settle a question without debating it.”
    - Joseph Joubert

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Unbenighted - As far as the 'waving flag' conspiracy claim goes, I would posit counter-arguments.

    1/ If the whole landing was faked, they would as sure as hell knocked up a flat flag scenario - either a windless set, or stiffeners fixed into or behind the flag.

    2/ The crumpled 'wind-blown' looked could have been caused as claimed, by deployment issues, and also that mesh stiffeners were put into the flag, but that the astronauts felt that the fluttering effect of bending the mesh a bit would look better (more dramatic) for the viewers back on Earth. It is quite plausible that in the excitement and tight schedule, they forgot to employ the lateral thinking required that would alert them to the fact that in doing so they would provide fuel for the conspiracists.

    3/ Shadows and reflections on the moon can be complex due to the greater reflective power of the earth on the moon than is the case the other way around. The effects are often akin to a powerful torch (in this case the Sun) and a less powerful torch (in this case the Earth) panning about over the moon's surface - and that of the landing equipment and the astronauts' kit. I am in mind of the effects of various moving lights in the street, or on an entertainment stage.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyway, sooner or later this will be cleared up by further visits and more powerful optical instrumentation. Again, this could and would have been forseen by any group faking Moon landings, and importantly the consequent embarrassment and damage to American public and international confidence that such revelations would trigger.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brockport, NY
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbenighted View Post
    It won't all be solved with the Chinese. There have been unmanned probes sent to the moon since Apollo but suspiciously none of them have ever carried optical camera powerful enough to provide evidence of the landings. Easily done.
    Huh? Not easily done at all. First of all, there have been two unmanned NASA probes sent to the Moon - Clementine, which crashed shortly after reaching the moon, and Prospector, which was designed and built to explore the moon's polar regions and then was intentionally crashed into the southern lunar pole to collect data regarding to life on the moon.

    Second, an optical camera powerful enough to provide evidence of the landings is not easily done. Spy satellites which can discern this type of object from orbit of the Earth are entire satellites dedicated to this purpose. A camera of such power takes up a lot of space. A simple camera will not be able to resolve such images. You'll have to excuse the government if they don't see the value in spending billions of taxpayer dollars to go and take pictures of something we already have millions of pictures of merely to placate a bunch of wackos on the internet.

    Probably some of the money used in the missions in secretly American - probably through some global company - in exchange for simply not utilising instruments or coordinates that would potentially disprove the landings. How easy would that be?
    Regardless of the easiness of upholding a conspiracy in such fashion - such instruments do not exist. The moon is over 384,000km away. At that distance, the smallest object that the Hubble Space Telescope can distinguish is about 60m across. The largest object left on the moon is about 9m across. We simply do not have a powerful enough telescope to see.
    NASA - Abandoned Spaceships and Moon Buggies

    It's like Mars. Look at how many unmanned probes screw up before landing there. Now this is not evidence for a conspiracy on Mars but it does beg the question how 60's technology put scores of men on another planetoid and now we can barely get the odd probe down on the Martian surface. Throw the russian inability to get there into the mix and again it's the history (the history of successful space flight - manned or unmanned) which draws the landings into question.
    This is a logical fallacy. Simply because something is difficult does not make it impossible. And there were many failures involved in the US Space program. Astronauts died before we ever reached the moon. Space vehicles crashed, blew up, and disintegrated. Apollo 13 famously had technical problems that nearly turned it into an orbiting grave.

    Furthermore, many lunar and Mars missions are successful. That a small number of them that are unsuccessful garner huge amounts of attention skews your perception of the difficulty of getting to the moon.

    The Russian inability to get there is a non-sequitur. Now that the Iron Curtain has fallen, we have observed that much of the Russian's asserted technological might was a smokescreen designed to keep the US at bay. Examples of this include much-ballyhooed military parades in Red Square during which we now know the same vehicles flew/drove by the cameras several times in order to give an impression of greater numbers, and finding recently captured, defected, and abandoned Soviet military equipment that is far below the standard of technology of the comparable United States equipment - Russian destroyers still used mechanical firing computers as recently as the 1980's.

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Anyway, sooner or later this will be cleared up by further visits and more powerful optical instrumentation. Again, this could and would have been forseen by any group faking Moon landings, and importantly the consequent embarrassment and damage to American public and international confidence that such revelations would trigger.
    An excellent point, especially considering that during this time we thought that by the year 2000 people would be living on the moon and also never dreamed the Soviet Union would fall apart having never gotten there.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    You guys have got this all back to front.

    The flag - not getting into the actual evidence. No matter how questionable and dodgy the numerous abnormalities on film etc. the authorities have seen to it that these are discreditted. NASA could put all of them to rest - but doesn't comment - which is even more suspicious than the evidence. They moan about the crackpots but won't provide the evidence 50 years later to shut them up. Now call me stupid but that sounds like they are happy for people to analyse the evidence and then in turn be ridiculed for it. If NASA had faked it isn't that what they'd want?

    Let's be honest - your own tones of incredulousness have simply taken on this same function. It's called interpellation; it's when subjects advocate the ideas of dominant ideologies as the norm without even knowing it. Unfortunately for those dominant ideologies dissident elements are a by product of the process. In history there have always been those who have had control of the 'facts' and those that campaign to reveal further 'truths'.

    More important than all of this is the killer idea that if the American government didn't fake it, but the whole situation carries with it a substantial doubt about whether or not it happened (you and I cannot produce any evidence that it did happen apart from that supplied by the suspect party), why the hell didn't they? Are you saying they never even considered it. When JFKennedy said they were going to the moon there wasn't even a budget for it. It bever occured to anyone to actually fake it? If these guys are clever enough to actually put a man on the moon then they sure as hell are clever enough to fake it. The big question is why not fake it? Nobility? Pursuit of truth. Are you saying that you trust the American government? They dropped a nuclear weapon on another country not less than twenty years before. Following - Nixon!!!! Bush!!!! God knows what else in between. Nah. Something stinks. To say anything else is to literally put your full trust in men like Bush, Nixon and dare I say it Kennedy. People who do that are the crack-pots, given all of the evidence of their administration's propensity to lie and bend truths, not some poor guy staring at the moon footage and spotting a couple of mistakes.

    As for the Year 2000 space travel and Russia. Do you think America getting to the moon first (at least as spectacle) had anything to do with the deterioration of Russia as a super power? If the Americans had indeed gone to the moon in 1969 don't you think that spaceflight WOULD be more advanced. My god, wait a minute - if they didn't go to the moon - but lied about it - then that would explain why we haven't been back and why space science simply ground to a halt post Apollo. Now that's an idea. What's so stupid about that?

    Chris Columbus reached America. Goes back. Tells everybody. They have to same technology as him. As the years go by - even better. Well, history books are full of people crossing the Atlantic after him. Then, oh, a couple pushed on further than that and circumnavigated the globe. This is the way in which human affairs are conducted: the natural desire to explore and discover new territories. The moon landings are the first time in the history of exploration that we have simply stopped - and seemingly for no good reason. Something stinks...
    “It is better to debate a question without settling it
    than to settle a question without debating it.”
    - Joseph Joubert

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brockport, NY
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbenighted View Post
    NASA could put all of them to rest - but doesn't comment - which is even more suspicious than the evidence.
    Why is it suspicious? Why does an agency, company, or individual need to respond to every idiotic idea about them that comes down the pike? Have you ever heard of the phrase "the question is so preposterous it does not even deserve a response"?

    By your rationale government officials should have to put forth weekly press releases that confirm that they are, in fact, not aliens from another planet, just because some crackpot with a blog says they are.

    Furthermore, NASA has responded to these allegations directly on many occasions. The very website I pointed you to does so:
    Many people find this surprising, even disconcerting. Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims.


    And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

    Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.
    They moan about the crackpots but won't provide the evidence 50 years later to shut them up.
    When has NASA moaned about anti-moon landing conspiracies? And see above, they do provide evidence, both in the form of rebutting the conspiracy theorists' claims and in the form of positive evidence of a moon landing - for example, the tons of moon rocks brought back by astronauts.

    Now call me stupid but that sounds like they are happy for people to analyse the evidence and then in turn be ridiculed for it. If NASA had faked it isn't that what they'd want?
    No. What they would want is no possibility that their "hoax" would ever be discovered.

    Put it this way - if they were capable of pulling off such a hoax, they would certainly be capable of making anyone who challenged their conspiracy disappear without a trace. The fact that these nuts publish books, videos, websites, and have paid speaking engagements, organizations, and publicly make their names and identities known and yet are still alive after years of doing so proves conclusively that there is no hoax.

    Let's be honest - your own tones of incredulousness have simply taken on this same function.
    My tone of incredulousness is due to the fact that I know people who have worked on NASA projects including Apollo, have shaken Neil Armstrong's hand, and see the continuation of this nonsense as an affront to all of their years of hard work and a denial of, to paraphrase Armstrong, the "giant leap for mankind" that we took in that process.

    It's called interpellation; it's when subjects advocate the ideas of dominant ideologies as the norm without even knowing it. Unfortunately for those dominant ideologies dissident elements are a by product of the process. In history there have always been those who have had control of the 'facts' and those that campaign to reveal further 'truths'.
    Red herring fallacy. Merely because other so-called "facts" have been later shown to be false does not have any bearing on these facts.

    (you and I cannot produce any evidence that it did happen apart from that supplied by the suspect party)
    I'm going to take this part out of order before I address the rest. I know you meant it as a throwaway item, which is why you put it in parenthesis, but this is one of the most common "deniers" mistakes.

    There are mountains of evidence other than that which the U.S. Government put forth that support the truth of our exploration of the moon.
    1. The Soviet government - our avowed enemy at the time, certainly looking for any chance to discredit the United States in this effort. Official Soviet writings at the time showed their space agency was hoping for a catastrophic American failure, as they had fallen behind and a major failure was their only hope of catching up. They monitored every aspect of every Apollo mission with their best equipment.
    2. Thousands of people - ordinary citizens - watched the launch of the Saturn V rockets that went to the moon.
    3. Thousands of people - military and ordinary citizens alike - were involved in the design, planning, and execution of the mission.
    4. Likewise, thousands would need to be involved in a conspiracy - all sworn to secrecy. None of them has relented and decided to tell the truth???
    5. Hundreds of naval personnel picked up the splashed-down Apollo vessels from the ocean.
    6. These aren't just one mission, there are several Apollo missions. Were they all faked?
    7. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13. Why would they fake a huge failure that cost American lives, and further fake a failure that almost cost even more?
    More important than all of this is the killer idea that if the American government didn't fake it, but the whole situation carries with it a substantial doubt about whether or not it happened (you and I cannot produce any evidence that it did happen apart from that supplied by the suspect party), why the hell didn't they?
    Because the people involved - largely scientists and military - truly wanted to succeed. Furthermore, for the conspiracy to be a success would involve far more planning and undue secrecy than the missions themselves. As I said, thousands of people would in essence be forced to keep the secret of this mission for their entire lives - one of the biggest "secrets" of human history.

    Are you saying they never even considered it.
    Yes.

    When JFKennedy said they were going to the moon there wasn't even a budget for it.
    So what? His words were inspirational, not pragmatic. He posited the idea and others picked up on it and ran - and several years later his notion came true. The government's budgets run for 1 year at a time. Are you implying that if someone came up with a great idea - say, a free clean source of power for all - that had nothing in the 2007 budget, it would be impossible to put it in for 2008 or, like in the case of Apollo 11, 2014???

    It bever occured to anyone to actually fake it?
    No.

    If these guys are clever enough to actually put a man on the moon then they sure as hell are clever enough to fake it.
    Why would that be the case??? Are you seriously putting forth the notion that engineering expertise and the ability to create and conceal a massive fraud are the same skill set??? I am "clever" enough to argue court cases and win, or create a housing project that takes advantage of tax credits. Does that mean I could build a rocket?

    The big question is why not fake it? Nobility? Pursuit of truth.
    Yes. Nobility. Pursuit of truth. The quest to "beat" the Russians. Many good reasons.

    Are you saying that you trust the American government?
    It is not necessary to. Furthermore, you once again commit a red herring - the fact that the "government" may have "lied" about other things does not mean that "they" "lied" about this.

    They dropped a nuclear weapon on another country not less than twenty years before. Following - Nixon!!!! Bush!!!! God knows what else in between. Nah. Something stinks.
    Nothing stinks except your argument.

    To say anything else is to literally put your full trust in men like Bush, Nixon and dare I say it Kennedy.
    No, it isn't. See above.

    People who do that are the crack-pots, given all of the evidence of their administration's propensity to lie and bend truths, not some poor guy staring at the moon footage and spotting a couple of mistakes.
    What administration's propensity to lie? I wasn't aware that George Bush was President in the 1960s.

    As for the Year 2000 space travel and Russia. Do you think America getting to the moon first (at least as spectacle) had anything to do with the deterioration of Russia as a super power?
    Other than the fact that it was one of the first signs of weakness in the supposed superpower? I don't recall saying that it was.

    If the Americans had indeed gone to the moon in 1969 don't you think that spaceflight WOULD be more advanced.
    Umm... it IS more advanced. The inflation-adjusted cost of launching the shuttle is much lower than Apollo and furthermore is vastly superior in every way. The fact that it does not go to the moon does not mean it is not more advanced. The shuttle does not go to the moon because it is not designed to do so.

    Furthermore, once the goal of getting to the moon was reached, interest in the space program subsided. The Vietnam war escalated, Watergate happened, and the nation fell into a recession. There are many reasons why we haven't sent humans farther than the moon.

    My god, wait a minute - if they didn't go to the moon - but lied about it - then that would explain why we haven't been back and why space science simply ground to a halt post Apollo. Now that's an idea. What's so stupid about that?
    What's so stupid about it is that space science did not, by any reasonable or even unreasonable stretch of the imagination, "grind to a halt" post-Apollo.

    Chris Columbus reached America. Goes back. Tells everybody. They have to same technology as him. As the years go by - even better. Well, history books are full of people crossing the Atlantic after him. Then, oh, a couple pushed on further than that and circumnavigated the globe. This is the way in which human affairs are conducted: the natural desire to explore and discover new territories.
    Vikings reached America around 1000 A.D. They went back to their homeland and told everybody. They have the same technology. As the years go by - even better. History books have no record of any further exploration and in fact all recorded information of the voyage had been lost as of Columbus' time.

    I take it you get my point? Your analogy is hopelessly flawed.

    The moon landings are the first time in the history of exploration that we have simply stopped - and seemingly for no good reason. Something stinks...
    First of all, I gave you many good reasons why we did not continue manned exploration of the moon. Second, space exploration did not stop. The mission changed. As soon as NASA's budget is zero you can tell me space exploration stopped.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palace of Kubla Khan and bovine worshippers
    Posts
    3,011
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbenighted
    Obviously some of what the conspiracy theorists advocate about the faked moon landings is shaky and in some case bonkers. I don't want to debate whether they're right and NASA is wrong. If this was a cover up that is exactly what the organisation covering up would want (misdirection - talk about the more extreme cranks rather than the idea / evidence).

    But something still stinks here doesn't it?
    If you can tell me how the thousands of people involved were all kept quiet on this cover-up, then I might tend to believe you. Where are your credible witnesses, your honor? Lying is one thing. Lying in unison is another matter entirely. I'll bet you couldn't even get 50 ODN members to keep a secret.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbenighted
    The moon landings are the first time in the history of exploration that we have simply stopped - and seemingly for no good reason. Something stinks...
    We had to do it at least once to see if we could, and find out what it would be like. The cost involved doesn't justify continuing to do it.

    I don't doubt there have been numerous government cover-ups, but this ain't one of them.
    anything could be an illusion and we wouldn't know the difference... proof schmoof...

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brockport, NY
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu Moo View Post
    If you can tell me how the thousands of people involved were all kept quiet on this cover-up, then I might tend to believe you. Where are your credible witnesses, your honor? Lying is one thing. Lying in unison is another matter entirely. I'll bet you couldn't even get 50 ODN members to keep a secret.
    I believe someone once said "Three people can keep a secret if two are dead"

  13. #13
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    The only thing I can say is that I've reviewed photographs from the moon landings, and I think they're totally faked, given my professional opinion (I'm a photographer of 5 years). Stuff just doesn't make sense. Anyone want a list, I'll be happy to provide...
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    ladyphoenix - The moon landing personnel have started to die off - it would be most unusual for all of them to go to their Maker or Oblivion without unburdoning themselves of such a 'lie' if it is one.

    Please remember that most of the photos will in the normal course of things recieve enhancement/improvement treatments.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palace of Kubla Khan and bovine worshippers
    Posts
    3,011
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    The only thing I can say is that I've reviewed photographs from the moon landings, and I think they're totally faked, given my professional opinion (I'm a photographer of 5 years). Stuff just doesn't make sense. Anyone want a list, I'll be happy to provide...
    Yes, please. I'm interested. And the videos as well if you have any opinion on those... Be sure to provide a sample photo or a link to one to help us see what you're talking about.

    It's also possible that photos could be rigged and the landing was still real. There are many legitimate scenarios for that combination. Photos could have been enhanced to give better publicity to furthering future NASA projects.
    anything could be an illusion and we wouldn't know the difference... proof schmoof...

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Bulls - the preposterous question thing? A question regarding the misinformation of the American public is a pretty serious allegation and shouldn't actually be able to be brushed aside because someone in the White House thinks its 'preposterous'. Dangerous standard to set. 'Did we go into Iraq for oil rather than the threat of weapons of mas destruction?' 'Er, that's a perposterous question so we're not going to answer it.' Sounds ****. You'll have to do better than that.

    Hubble. Ha ha ha. You sound so convincing talking about Hubble's range being only able to see things at 60 meters. Who constructed Hubble? Who put Hubble up there? Yeah, you got it. NASA. If you faked the landings, you're hardly going to put a telescope up there that can disprove your claims. You might calibrate it is say be only slighty less powerful than it needs to be to do this. Which it is. It's not like we don't have the technology to do it if we want. NASA determines the money spent and the ability parameters of their own equipment. Just as a general example, (please no specifics) - we are very much led to belive that we have satellites in orbit than can pinpoint individual vehicles and even people from orbit: and that's through atmosphere and weather conditions. On the moon it would be blindingly clear. Same technology in an orbiting lunar stellite shouldbe able to accomplish the same. And please - no reasons suggested by NASA why this can't happen. It's exactly their word that is in doubt.

    You say they wouldn't want the hoax to be discovered. Not an option mate. This isn't a 21st century obsession. Some of the most telling evidence comes from polls at the time of the landings themselves. We're led to believ that the population bought this wholesale. They didn't. Gallop polls of the time indicated a distrust in what people were seeing and being told. People were doubting the landings right from the off. Hollywood films were being made of the damn thing only a handful of years afterwards: it was part of the social consciousness.

    Shaking Armstrong's hand. Hmmm. And that was the moment I realised that you couldn't be impartial. I can because as I stated I'm not even looking at it from the evidence and therefore open to the crack-pot accusation. I'm approaching it from the same point of view as a historian. Everything about those landings is a historical document to me and I'm saying that things don't add up. You on the other hand have shaken Armstrong's hand. If you were a witness in a court the moment you admitted that would be the moment your testimony and opinion would be thrown out. It doesn't strengthen your argument: it considerably weakens it. Thousands of people have shaken George Bush's hand: doesn't means he tells the truth.


    Red herring fallacy: Er, you simply don't understand the concept of interpellation. If you did you'd realise how stupid what you just said makes you sound.

    Mountains of evidence: I said I wasn't going to get into the evidence. It's traditional crackpot territory as far as NASA is concerned and like you NASA likes to return to it in order to not actually answer any direct questions or provide genuine explanations to genuine concerns. Since you dared me though -
    1) USSR and US have plenty of embarrassing dirt on each other. Can I remind you of how easily conflict between these two nations can lead to catastrophic events e.g. Cuban Missile crisis. Even if the russians had difinitive evidence, you really think they are going to parade this on the world stage and provoke / agitate the United States. We are talking about a cornerstone of American history. Nah. I don't think even Russia - IF they had the evidence would play those kind of dice. US is similarly going to have mountains of dirt on atrocities / lies/ etc that the russians have committed. Politics is much more complicated than the russians simply giving the Americans up. Think of the political mileage in russia not informing the world?
    2) Naval peronel and people watching Saturn V rockets. Nobody is denying these guys couldn't have orbitted the Earth and spalshed back down. You know when you fake something you do actually have to try to make it look like it happened. Be a bit stupid not to actually send up the rocket or recover the crew with a naval vessel. Easy bit. As for equipment. All the equipment can be made to specification - again - so problem. just makes the whole thing look more real. That's not to say that this equipment had been tested in an off world environment or would actually work. Take the actual spacecraft. Computer capability of a calculator. perfectly lands on the moon - an alien environment - half a dozen times. Now, with all the supercomputer power in the world we still have aircraft collide, we still crash probes on Mars our internet still regulalry takes a dive. Hmmm. Doesn't sound right. Scientists involved in the rpoduction of the suits and cameras are on record saying that in retropect aspects of their designs shouldn't have worked as well / kept the astronauts as safe as it did. Consider the differences between US and Russian approaches to space craft design. Apollo was basically alluminium. The russians on the other hand were struggling even at a design stage with lead, several feet thick just to protect their cosmonauts from the unpredicatable radiation fluctuations that they would suffer away from the protection of the Earth's own natural radiation shielding.
    3) As for Apollo 13. Many of the scientists working for NASA are mathmaticians. Even they are going to realise that a succession of missions in such dangerous circumstances could not go without a hitch. Agan, it is is a hoax you are going to have to work in believable elements and there is nothing as belivable as a **** up. Besides, the landings had become useful propaganda by then. 13 was a way of reigniting interest and keeping it useful. It was number 13, for christ's sake. How irresistable must that have been. And how ultimately believable.
    All of those numbered points are so easy to explain. Hit me with something difficult will you. I'd really love to say. You know what... you're right. But until you can do that why on Earth would I change my mind?

    Thousands of people keeping a secret: That is not the way a government keeps its secrets. A small number of people know. The rest are simply part of the credibility machine. As far as they're concerned it's real. The guy that makes the visors on the helmets thinks he's making visors for helmets to work on the moon. NASA has given him the specs. He makes the helmets. he doesn't have to know it's a lie. In fact it's better he doesn't. Wake up.
    They never considered it? And you simply say 'yes'. Thank God you're not in government. I'd prefer clever people who lie to me running the governement than blind idiots who tell simple, comfortable and ultimately useless truths.
    Why not fake it? Nobility. Come on. Was dropping the bomb noble? or was it one of the most politically effective acts of the twentieth century. A hoax does beat the russians and at half the cost.
    Lies - Here's an interesting one. Politicians lie. It's a repeatedly proven fact. Yet because it's the moon - a sacred 'I've shaken Armstrong's hand' cow - you're chosing to belive it. on the other hand, even a crackiet crack pot who believes all the conspiracy theories about the moon hasn't lied once. He's actually truly on a quest for truth - no matter how bizarre he sounds. Again, in a court - who am I going with 1) the politician who is on record as lying or 2) the misguided crackpot who although seems a bit obsessed actually hasn't lied and is in fact demanding the truth. I know who my money's on.
    Nothing stinks except your argument - Very highbrow. Feeling threatened?
    Politicans and lying: No president lied before Bush eh? NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, oh yeah and Nixon.
    Advanced spaceflight - Did you really use the words "inflation-adjusted cost of launching". It was fifty years ago! We're talking about moon bases, men on mars, thorough exploration of the outer solar system - not cheap fuel. The basic design of the shuttle is based on the NAzi Antipodal bomber invented in 1944. Ahhhhhh!
    Viking - hopelessly flawed? The Vikings stopped because their way of life crumbled. Vikings didn't exist anywhere after that point. But nice of you to start talking about Vikings and state the point is flawed when I was talking about Columbus. Europeans kept crossing the Atlantic following Columbus' discovery of America. And still do up to this day. It didn't just stop for 50 years (or more) like the moon. Even if Columbus had found America as barren as the moon the natural human spirit of exploration would have had further missions push on. To see what was beyond. We have not done that. It is unnatural.
    Snoop: You're easily impressed.

    You will have to do better than that guys.
    Last edited by Unbenighted; November 21st, 2007 at 04:45 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    “It is better to debate a question without settling it
    than to settle a question without debating it.”
    - Joseph Joubert

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brockport, NY
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    The only thing I can say is that I've reviewed photographs from the moon landings, and I think they're totally faked, given my professional opinion (I'm a photographer of 5 years). Stuff just doesn't make sense. Anyone want a list, I'll be happy to provide...
    Really? How many of those 5 years have you spent taking pictures on the moon? Did you ever consider that might be the reason why they look different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbenighted View Post
    Bulls - the preposterous question thing? A question regarding the misinformation of the American public is a pretty serious allegation and shouldn't actually be able to be brushed aside because someone in the White House thinks its 'preposterous'.
    I'm not someone in the white house. Millions of citizens and scientists who know that the moon landing was NOT faked brush aside your crackpot questions.

    THERE IS NO MISINFORMATION. THE MOON LANDING WAS REAL. Get it?

    Dangerous standard to set. 'Did we go into Iraq for oil rather than the threat of weapons of mas destruction?' 'Er, that's a perposterous question so we're not going to answer it.' Sounds ****. You'll have to do better than that.
    RED HERRING Either learn how to debate without constant logical fallacies or GTFO.

    Hubble. Ha ha ha. You sound so convincing talking about Hubble's range being only able to see things at 60 meters. Who constructed Hubble? Who put Hubble up there? Yeah, you got it. NASA. If you faked the landings, you're hardly going to put a telescope up there that can disprove your claims. You might calibrate it is say be only slighty less powerful than it needs to be to do this. Which it is. It's not like we don't have the technology to do it if we want. NASA determines the money spent and the ability parameters of their own equipment.
    Holy sh*t are you serious?? The Hubble bit was in RESPONSE to people who say "The moon landings were faked because we should be able to see the equipment up there with a telescope". All I was saying is that no, we can't see it, because we don't have a powerful enough telescope.

    Just as a general example, (please no specifics) - we are very much led to belive that we have satellites in orbit than can pinpoint individual vehicles and even people from orbit: and that's through atmosphere and weather conditions. On the moon it would be blindingly clear. Same technology in an orbiting lunar stellite shouldbe able to accomplish the same. And please - no reasons suggested by NASA why this can't happen. It's exactly their word that is in doubt.
    I never said it wouldn't be able to accomplish - of course for enough money it would be doable. However, we don't HAVE a lunar satellite. Since the manned lunar missions there have only been 2 probes sent to the moon, and neither one was designed to take pictures. Why would NASA spend billions and years to go up and take pictures just to prove something that everyone except total f*cking idiots knows is true?

    You say they wouldn't want the hoax to be discovered. Not an option mate. This isn't a 21st century obsession. Some of the most telling evidence comes from polls at the time of the landings themselves. We're led to believ that the population bought this wholesale. They didn't. Gallop polls of the time indicated a distrust in what people were seeing and being told. People were doubting the landings right from the off. Hollywood films were being made of the damn thing only a handful of years afterwards: it was part of the social consciousness.
    Show me. Prove it. I can't find anything that even remotely suggests what you are saying. Furthermore, what difference does it make? The landings happened, and it doesn't matter how many idiots say they didn't.

    Shaking Armstrong's hand. Hmmm. And that was the moment I realised that you couldn't be impartial. I can because as I stated I'm not even looking at it from the evidence and therefore open to the crack-pot accusation.
    You're not even looking at it from the evidence - that's the smartest thing you've said so far because if you looked at the evidence for 30 seconds you'd realize what a dumb position you are putting forth.

    I'm approaching it from the same point of view as a historian.
    No. A historian knows that the landings were real. You are approaching it from the point of view of someone wearing a tinfoil hat who thinks the X-Files was a documentary.

    Everything about those landings is a historical document to me and I'm saying that things don't add up.
    You're wrong.

    You on the other hand have shaken Armstrong's hand. If you were a witness in a court the moment you admitted that would be the moment your testimony and opinion would be thrown out. It doesn't strengthen your argument: it considerably weakens it. Thousands of people have shaken George Bush's hand: doesn't means he tells the truth.
    Obviously you've never been to law school. I mentioned my admittedly limited knowledge of NASA because you questioned the character of the people that worked on Apollo - your entire position in fact consists of calling them all frauds and liars.

    On that basis, my "testimony" is strengthened by personal knowledge.

    Red herring fallacy: Er, you simply don't understand the concept of interpellation. If you did you'd realise how stupid what you just said makes you sound.
    I know what interpolation is. Apparently you do not, since you can't even spell it (Get mozilla, free spell check). Also, you do not know what the Red Herring Fallacy is, or do not care, since you do not correct the ones you have previously made and continue to make new ones...

    1) USSR and US have plenty of embarrassing dirt on each other.
    Care to support that with some evidence? Of course not, because you have none. Try again.
    Can I remind you of how easily conflict between these two nations can lead to catastrophic events e.g. Cuban Missile crisis. Even if the russians had difinitive evidence, you really think they are going to parade this on the world stage and provoke / agitate the United States.
    You are ridiculous, and obviously do not know your history. The Soviets took every opportunity to use whatever knowledge they had to make the US look bad. Tell you what, you go read up on U-2 Crisis of 1960 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Gary Powers) and then come back here and tell me that again....

    2) Naval peronel and people watching Saturn V rockets. Nobody is denying these guys couldn't have orbitted the Earth and spalshed back down. You know when you fake something you do actually have to try to make it look like it happened. Be a bit stupid not to actually send up the rocket or recover the crew with a naval vessel. Easy bit. As for equipment. All the equipment can be made to specification - again - so problem. just makes the whole thing look more real. That's not to say that this equipment had been tested in an off world environment or would actually work. Take the actual spacecraft. Computer capability of a calculator. perfectly lands on the moon - an alien environment - half a dozen times. Now, with all the supercomputer power in the world we still have aircraft collide, we still crash probes on Mars our internet still regulalry takes a dive. Hmmm. Doesn't sound right.
    Because it's NOT right, you dolt. Both amateurs, the US, and the Soviets tracked the vehicles on their way to and from the moon. Thousands of independent sources were able to track the craft on their way to the moon and back.

    Your claim that "we still have aircraft collide" shows your complete and utter lack of any reasonable knowledge on this topic. Aircraft collide on such a RARE basis as to be statistically zero. Air travel is by far the safest means of getting from one place to another. And we have only crashed one probe on Mars. We have landed many successfully and have launched thousands of successful space flights of other types. Furthermore, there were no other aircraft to collide with between here and the moon...

    And what the hell does the internet crashing have to do with outer space?

    Scientists involved in the rpoduction of the suits and cameras are on record saying that in retropect aspects of their designs shouldn't have worked as well / kept the astronauts as safe as it did.
    Where? When? Without such quotes or records your argument is exposed for what it is: nonsense.

    Consider the differences between US and Russian approaches to space craft design. Apollo was basically alluminium. The russians on the other hand were struggling even at a design stage with lead, several feet thick just to protect their cosmonauts from the unpredicatable radiation fluctuations that they would suffer away from the protection of the Earth's own natural radiation shielding.
    Duh... Which is why we got there first... You are unbelievable. In the last paragraph you are saying there is no way our technology was good enough to get us there, in the next you are saying our technology was so good it was implausible that it existed.

    3) As for Apollo 13. Many of the scientists working for NASA are mathmaticians. Even they are going to realise that a succession of missions in such dangerous circumstances could not go without a hitch. Agan, it is is a hoax you are going to have to work in believable elements and there is nothing as belivable as a **** up. Besides, the landings had become useful propaganda by then. 13 was a way of reigniting interest and keeping it useful. It was number 13, for christ's sake. How irresistable must that have been. And how ultimately believable.
    But the entire mission was tracked and televised. Again, thousands of independent sources confirmed that Apollo 13 was up there.

    All of those numbered points are so easy to explain.
    Then why don't you? You "answered" them with more idiocy.

    Lies - Here's an interesting one. Politicians lie. It's a repeatedly proven fact.
    Who? What politicians? More red herrings.

    on the other hand, even a crackiet crack pot who believes all the conspiracy theories about the moon hasn't lied once. He's actually truly on a quest for truth - no matter how bizarre he sounds.
    A person truly believing an idiotic and insane stance is not noble, they are an idiot and insane.
    Again, in a court - who am I going with 1) the politician who is on record as lying or 2) the misguided crackpot who although seems a bit obsessed actually hasn't lied and is in fact demanding the truth. I know who my money's on.
    Red f**king herring. Who that announced or reported the moon landing was "on record" as lying? LEARN HOW TO DEBATE LOGICALLY

    Advanced spaceflight - Did you really use the words "inflation-adjusted cost of launching". It was fifty years ago! We're talking about moon bases, men on mars, thorough exploration of the outer solar system - not cheap fuel. The basic design of the shuttle is based on the NAzi Antipodal bomber invented in 1944. Ahhhhhh!
    You missed the point entirely. No surprise.

    Viking - hopelessly flawed? The Vikings stopped because their way of life crumbled. Vikings didn't exist anywhere after that point. But nice of you to start talking about Vikings and state the point is flawed when I was talking about Columbus. Europeans kept crossing the Atlantic following Columbus' discovery of America. And still do up to this day. It didn't just stop for 50 years (or more) like the moon. Even if Columbus had found America as barren as the moon the natural human spirit of exploration would have had further missions push on. To see what was beyond. We have not done that. It is unnatural.
    Holy sh*t you have got to be kidding me. You used your Columbus analogy in a flawed attempt to show that just because Columbus discovered something and people kept going there that the same should happen with the moon. I used the Viking example to show that was not the case.

    The Viking example is a bad comparison to exploration of space and my point was that so is Christopher Columbus.

    You will have to do better than that guys.
    Whatever. I'm not explaining this in three-letter words like you obviously need in order to understand. You do not understand analogy, you do not understand logical fallacies, and you do not understand EVIDENCE. Therefore, it is no surprise you can fall for a moronic conspiracy theory such as the "moon landing hoax".

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    You're not debating this. I addressed your points by analysing your stand point. You simply keep saying I'm wrong. The landings happened and you're right. Oh and that anyone else who questions it is an idiot. Other people have joined the thread and made a comment on the photos and you ridiculed their professionalism. You're not even a photographer: how qualified are you to judge that the photos are exactly as they should be? Oh, I forgot: you shook Armstrong's hand. This is the crux of the problem. You've clearly met one of your heroes: you don't want his hero status questioned - you are completely incapable of being objective.

    I'm not going to comment on many of your other points because - well, I've argued a case that you have as yet to draw into question. The integrity of each of the arguments holds up and I encourage others to view my previous post and decide for themselves. You simply crowing that I'm wrong doesn't make me feel that I have to change my position. You also accused me of not debating. Again I'd ask others to review what I said and then review your classic 'You're wrong' responses to judge which of us is debating and which one isn't.

    History - I said at the beginning that I didn't want to get into the evidence. I wanted to APPROACH it as a historian. I did this because I knew somebody like you (and like NASA) doesn't like anyone approaching this with cool, logical head on. You keep bringing us back to pieces of evidence so you can label us crack-pots. I'm not playing your game. You've insulted other people who have remotely gone near evidence like the photos.And as far as the moon landing being history you need to learn a little bit more about the nature of history. During the Tudor successions history was rewritten every time a new dominant ideology took to the throne. Catholics then Protestants then Catholics again. All rewriting the histories of their predessors. We know this. Only a fool would say the moon landing happened BECAUSE the American government told me so (and I believe them.) Fine - you be a sap. But allow others to retain a healthy doubt of authority structures and the possible abuses that might arise from them. Read some Orwell. He was talking about today's authority structures not tomorrows.

    Fraud and liars - As i indicated in the classic pyramid structure of governments retaining secrets, 99% of the people involved thought they were involved ina real mission and did their job to the best of their ability.

    Interpolation! - Not interpolation you idiot. interpellation. If you don't know what it means or don't understand it them please just admit that. Don't simply select a similar sounding word and suggest that everyone else doesn't know what their talking about. They're, there, their? To, two, too?

    Air craft collison - Take a look at some of the other active threads. There is one running right now about NASA trying to bury a pieces of research indicating that mid air collisions take place a great deal more often than the authorities admit. Go a pick a fight on that thread if you don't believe me. Priceless you actually contradicting that on this thread though.

    As for your end point. Don't debate it with me then. The title of the thread indicates that even if you removed all the evidence that NASA and you like to ridicule something still stinks right? You obviously don't think that's possible. I'm open to the possibilty I'm wrong, which is why I can debate it. You cannot entertain that possibility in yourself so you are simply going to hang around and insult people until they agree you are right without a shadow of a doubt. Not going to happen buddy. It is the shadow of a doubt that interests me. Hence why this is in the conspiracies section. So why don't you and Armstrong and JF and Nixon and Bush go and debate whether or not the sky is blue on a nice easy thread where there are no uncertainties to upset you.

    Nice talking to you.
    “It is better to debate a question without settling it
    than to settle a question without debating it.”
    - Joseph Joubert

  19. #19
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bullslawdan View Post
    Really? How many of those 5 years have you spent taking pictures on the moon? Did you ever consider that might be the reason why they look different?
    You ever been to the moon? No. Do you know what cameras and film they were using on the moon? I do. Do you know anything about lighting theory and the technical aspect of photography? I certainly do. If you've ever tried to shoot objects at night or in deep shadow, you'd be a little weirded out too. If you understood the relationship to timing and aperture and film speed, you'd understand why something in a shadow with something as intensely bright a sun beating down on you with no atmosphere should not be visible, or if it is, the area that is in the sun should be wholly blown out.

    Considering how they weren't able to change settings on their hasselblad cameras, and they had to have been shooting at like an 800 asa so they'd be able to take pictures at a decent shutter speed. 800 asa film is insanely grainy, even 400 asa in those conditions would appear very grainy if you tried to dodge out the details in a dark room. The area that is in light has lots of definition, lots of contrast, meaning it's not blown out (because once you blow it out, you totally lose contrast, and that can't be fixed). So the area in shadow had to be hella dark. It had to have been lightened, which would ultimately kill the quality of such things as the reflections in the mask (you want me to get into detail about the technical darkroom theories, I can do that too)... but amazingly that's not what we see here... THIS leads me to believe there was a secondary light source. Not to mention that shadows are appearing at perpendicular angles, also suggesting more than one light source.

    I'd also like a light table and a look at the negatives from the ones where the crosshairs go behind objects. I've heard a plausible explanation for it, though I've never seen it, but there would still be some blurred trace with the level of detail we'd get with a loupe on a negative at a light table.

    Notice that I don't say anything here about lack of stars (I've done night photography, so I know how that works) or anything about the landscape other than the shadows. My argument strictly comes from having done night photography, and direct sunlight photography, and countless tens of thousands of hours in the dark room with every kind of film imaginable. Granted, I don't know everything, but I have a heck of a lot more knowledge than most people, and in my professional opinion, it seems rather fishy. That's all I'm saying.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Men on the Moon: Something - if not everything stinks!

    Something stinks...probably the fish from the end of LadyPhoenix's last post.

    Lady, I've heard about the missing stars and many people claim that it is very easy to explain why they are not there. From a photography point of view can you explain it to me?

    I can understand that if it were faked then NASA's own scientists would have told them (pre CGI) that it would be impossible the fake the constellations. Even the most amateur astronomer years in the future - given the right charts, dates and footage - could prove that it was a sound stage ceiling rather than the actual night sky above that part of the moon on that day at that time. This would seem reason enough to ditch it wholesale. No stars: no proof. That said, photography is a distinct science in its own right and I'd like to understand how a camera might not pick them up, even if they were there.

    Can you help me out?
    “It is better to debate a question without settling it
    than to settle a question without debating it.”
    - Joseph Joubert

 

 
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Should Gay Couples Be Permitted to Adopt Children?
    By Scarlett44 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 285
    Last Post: September 21st, 2013, 11:19 AM
  2. MEN VS. WOMEN (BASHING JOKES) *warning-may be offensive*
    By sylouette in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: December 8th, 2010, 10:05 AM
  3. Why Men Do What They Do
    By sylouette in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: July 6th, 2009, 12:16 AM
  4. Male vrs Female.
    By Dr.Jackle in forum General Debate
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: July 20th, 2006, 09:01 PM
  5. Sushi
    By Snoop in forum Hobbies
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: April 14th, 2006, 10:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •